Gears of War 9.6???

sure it was a great game, and still is. but 9.6???come on people.how can gears be better than games like halo 2,  final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live. while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.)  host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts. how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4? Gears of War 9.6???
this is sooo old topic... dude u need start catchin up.. Gears of War 9.6???
graphics
Gears is more up to date and it was a really good game. Games that are rated in magazines and on sites are rated from the graphics, sounds and gameplay, etc. Not how much fun the game is. Many people may think Halo 2 is more fun then GeOW has many better things. And anyways this is just one site there may be many others that rank Halo 2 higher the GeOW.
Mabe the reviewer likes Gears more then Halo, nig deal, it's just .2 points.
Hmm I don't agree with you at all, i still play online and yes there is a noticable difference between host and non host but it is still very fun. The campaign I actually beat multiple times because it was fun and even more fun in coop.
1.yes 9.6 is retarted high and undeserving2.online is actually just a bunch of shotgun shootouts with the winner being whoever pulls the trigger first3.host advantage blows4.ff 7, super mario 64, god of war (1 and 2), gta (3 and the first city of san andreas), Half life 2, and many more are much better, however, I cant agree with you on halo because Im not a fan....5.The reason it scored so high was mostly graghical 
ZOMG 9.6 for Gears and only 9.4 for Halo???? I'm not a math major but 0.2% doesn't equal much; they're just numbers. Get a hold of yourself. All the games you mentioned are in the scoring range of where Gears sits. Gears is an awesome game because it delivers. Halo 2 is last gen, Gears of War is current gen. I don't understand why people have a beef with the scoring system. Who cares?
[QUOTE=''mistervengeance'']sure it was a great game, and still is. but 9.6???come on people.how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live. while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts. how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4? [/QUOTE] Well because Halo 2 was a piece of S*** and Gears was prety good, by the way Halo did not define S*** the first one was fun the second one sucked and the third one is almost an exact copy of the second one so guess what that means the 3rd one sucks too. P.S. Sorry but I'm sick of people acting like Halo was the first/best fps ever created when in reality which is something all of the Haloboys left behind a long time ago Halo was just a fun fps that was ruined by the second one. 
agreed TC. gears was super linear, repetitive, short, lacking MP options, and at times, down right boring. not to mentions the bogus updates and insane host advantage flaws, this game has become a joke, though to be fair, these were added after release. other games are bashed for these types of things yet it was ok for epic to release a half @$$ed game (albeit a pretty one). I would never give this game anything over an 8.

Stop comparing it to every other game that's ever received a 9 or above. You can't compare any game in the world to it, it doesn't work that way.Do some research and educate yourself into how reviews work, then come back because at the moment you're basically asking why Gears has a score above a game in a completely different genre, you may as well be asking why games are even scored in the first place.Comparing Gears of War to Super Mario 64 or Grand Theft Auto is a little nuts. Just rethink that, it makes so little sense it hurts my head.
[QUOTE=''julianwelton''][QUOTE=''mistervengeance''] sure it was a great game, and still is. but 9.6???come on people.how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live. while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts. how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4? [/QUOTE] Well because Halo 2 was a piece of S*** and Gears was prety good, by the way Halo did not define S*** the first one was fun the second one sucked and the third one is almost an exact copy of the second one so guess what that means the 3rd one sucks too. P.S. Sorry but I'm sick of people acting like Halo was the first/best fps ever created when in reality which is something all of the Haloboys left behind a long time ago Halo was just a fun fps that was ruined by the second one. [/QUOTE] I couldn't agree about Halo more
reasons why i think Gears actually deserved the 9.6.1) the game fuses two types of shooting styles almost perfectly, which i think a lot of people dont give credit to.  the covering mechanic in gears is usually compared to tactical shooters like GRAW and R6V, while the shooting mechanic and guns (along with the high health system) is similar to Halo and UT.  the Tom Clancy shooters and Halo/UT are usually viewed as two different types of shooting genre's that never mix, but Gears was one of those games that was able to blend these two types into a fluid game mechanic.  its awesome to be tactically taking cover and shooting from afar to take out the locust (GRAW and R6V), but then quickly switch to your shotty and just roll around killing the wretches right and left (Halo and UT)2) its co-op is second to none.  while Halo 2 had co-op as well, it did not nearly perfect the idea of co-op gaming like Gears did.  Epic said all along that they developed the SP with co-op in mind, and it shows.  picking up your friend from being down really makes it so that you two stick together and work well together.  also, the times when you split into different routes still has you helping out your teammate from different vantage points.3) there is a huge focus on teamwork.  if your skills are good enough in games like halo and UT, you can easily take out multiple opponents on your own (e.g. those double kill and triple kill awards that you get in Halo while playing).  unless they have the boomshot or hammer, any two decent players can take down a great Gears player with teamwork.  the slow pace of the game (compared to halo and UT) allows for two players to easily coordinate an attack on a sole enemy and be successful.- the fact that the SP only had 4-8 players on the screen at the same time only shows how smart the AI was.  in Halo, what is the use of bragging about numerous enemies that you are going against if half of them are just grunts that fall down after a couple of shots.  each enemy in Gears (aside from wretches) could kill you... easily if you were not behind cover.- story was bad, very much agreed.  but what about the halo 2 story... especially the ending? :roll:  and while Gears SP took 6-8 hours to complete, halo 2's SP clocked in around 8-10 hours... not that much of a difference- host advantage is annoying if you desparately need to win in order to have fun.  - the Gears community is only as bad as the halo 2 community.  glitchers in gears = hackers in Halo 2.  and both are filled with juvenile kids/adults.
[QUOTE=''julianwelton''][QUOTE=''mistervengeance'']sure it was a great game, and still is. but 9.6???come on people.how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live. while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts. how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4? [/QUOTE] Well because Halo 2 was a piece of S*** and Gears was prety good, by the way Halo did not define S*** the first one was fun the second one sucked and the third one is almost an exact copy of the second one so guess what that means the 3rd one sucks too. P.S. Sorry but I'm sick of people acting like Halo was the first/best fps ever created when in reality which is something all of the Haloboys left behind a long time ago Halo was just a fun fps that was ruined by the second one. [/QUOTE]are you kidding me? the fist one was good, but the second one was amazing. pushed the xbox as far as it could go. amazing online multi with a great friends and party system, better cutscenes and storyline, etc. those who say the first one was better are just jumping on the bandwagon of ''halo 2 sucks, you have no right to say otherwise, because i think on a higher level than you''
[QUOTE=''dEfousEd'']graphics[/QUOTE] That's the only redeeming quality of the game for me... and a chainsaw now and then. I think that rating is a joke, myself.Gears shows why steroids and hide-and-seek don't mix. Also, nobody I know crouches whlie they run. They're too top heavy to stand vertical, I guess ;)
also... lets consider that Gears is mostly a unique gameplay experience (the biggest thing Epic copied was kill.switch's cover system, but that game did not use the cover system the way gears did i.e. multiplayer)halo's arcade style fast paced shooter is amazing, but not entirely unique.  its as if the most hardcore halo fans never played UT or Quake before.
[QUOTE=''mistervengeance''][QUOTE=''julianwelton''][QUOTE=''mistervengeance''] sure it was a great game, and still is. but 9.6???come on people.how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live. while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts. how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4? [/QUOTE] Well because Halo 2 was a piece of S*** and Gears was prety good, by the way Halo did not define S*** the first one was fun the second one sucked and the third one is almost an exact copy of the second one so guess what that means the 3rd one sucks too. P.S. Sorry but I'm sick of people acting like Halo was the first/best fps ever created when in reality which is something all of the Haloboys left behind a long time ago Halo was just a fun fps that was ruined by the second one. [/QUOTE]are you kidding me? the fist one was good, but the second one was amazing. pushed the xbox as far as it could go. amazing online multi with a great friends and party system, better cutscenes and storyline, etc. those who say the first one was better are just jumping on the bandwagon of ''halo 2 sucks, you have no right to say otherwise, because i think on a higher level than you'' [/QUOTE] and you are just jumping on the somewhat larger bandwagon of people saying Halo 2 was amazing
[QUOTE=''c0mplex''] also... lets consider that Gears is mostly a unique gameplay experience (the biggest thing Epic copied was kill.switch's cover system, but that game did not use the cover system the way gears did i.e. multiplayer)halo's arcade style fast paced shooter is amazing, but not entirely unique.  its as if the most hardcore halo fans never played UT or Quake before.[/QUOTE] your second point is accurate, but who uses cover regularly on gears mp
i dont think it deserved 9.6
[QUOTE=''c0mplex'']reasons why i think Gears actually deserved the 9.6.1) the game fuses two types of shooting styles almost perfectly, which i think a lot of people dont give credit to. the covering mechanic in gears is usually compared to tactical shooters like GRAW and R6V, while the shooting mechanic and guns (along with the high health system) is similar to Halo and UT. the Tom Clancy shooters and Halo/UT are usually viewed as two different types of shooting genre's that never mix, but Gears was one of those games that was able to blend these two types into a fluid game mechanic. its awesome to be tactically taking cover and shooting from afar to take out the locust (GRAW and R6V), but then quickly switch to your shotty and just roll around killing the wretches right and left (Halo and UT)2) its co-op is second to none. while Halo 2 had co-op as well, it did not nearly perfect the idea of co-op gaming like Gears did. Epic said all along that they developed the SP with co-op in mind, and it shows. picking up your friend from being down really makes it so that you two stick together and work well together. also, the times when you split into different routes still has you helping out your teammate from different vantage points.3) there is a huge focus on teamwork. if your skills are good enough in games like halo and UT, you can easily take out multiple opponents on your own (e.g. those double kill and triple kill awards that you get in Halo while playing). unless they have the boomshot or hammer, any two decent players can take down a great Gears player with teamwork. the slow pace of the game (compared to halo and UT) allows for two players to easily coordinate an attack on a sole enemy and be successful.- the fact that the SP only had 4-8 players on the screen at the same time only shows how smart the AI was. in Halo, what is the use of bragging about numerous enemies that you are going against if half of them are just grunts that fall down after a couple of shots. each enemy in Gears (aside from wretches) could kill you... easily if you were not behind cover.- story was bad, very much agreed. but what about the halo 2 story... especially the ending? :roll: and while Gears SP took 6-8 hours to complete, halo 2's SP clocked in around 8-10 hours... not that much of a difference- host advantage is annoying if you desparately need to win in order to have fun. - the Gears community is only as bad as the halo 2 community. glitchers in gears = hackers in Halo 2. and both are filled with juvenile kids/adults.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=''c0mplex'']reasons why i think Gears actually deserved the 9.6.1) the game fuses two types of shooting styles almost perfectly, which i think a lot of people dont give credit to. the covering mechanic in gears is usually compared to tactical shooters like GRAW and R6V, while the shooting mechanic and guns (along with the high health system) is similar to Halo and UT. the Tom Clancy shooters and Halo/UT are usually viewed as two different types of shooting genre's that never mix, but Gears was one of those games that was able to blend these two types into a fluid game mechanic. its awesome to be tactically taking cover and shooting from afar to take out the locust (GRAW and R6V), but then quickly switch to your shotty and just roll around killing the wretches right and left (Halo and UT)2) its co-op is second to none. while Halo 2 had co-op as well, it did not nearly perfect the idea of co-op gaming like Gears did. Epic said all along that they developed the SP with co-op in mind, and it shows. picking up your friend from being down really makes it so that you two stick together and work well together. also, the times when you split into different routes still has you helping out your teammate from different vantage points.3) there is a huge focus on teamwork. if your skills are good enough in games like halo and UT, you can easily take out multiple opponents on your own (e.g. those double kill and triple kill awards that you get in Halo while playing). unless they have the boomshot or hammer, any two decent players can take down a great Gears player with teamwork. the slow pace of the game (compared to halo and UT) allows for two players to easily coordinate an attack on a sole enemy and be successful.- the fact that the SP only had 4-8 players on the screen at the same time only shows how smart the AI was. in Halo, what is the use of bragging about numerous enemies that you are going against if half of them are just grunts that fall down after a couple of shots. each enemy in Gears (aside from wretches) could kill you... easily if you were not behind cover.- story was bad, very much agreed. but what about the halo 2 story... especially the ending? :roll: and while Gears SP took 6-8 hours to complete, halo 2's SP clocked in around 8-10 hours... not that much of a difference- host advantage is annoying if you desparately need to win in order to have fun. - the Gears community is only as bad as the halo 2 community. glitchers in gears = hackers in Halo 2. and both are filled with juvenile kids/adults.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=''c0mplex'']reasons why i think Gears actually deserved the 9.6.1) the game fuses two types of shooting styles almost perfectly, which i think a lot of people dont give credit to. the covering mechanic in gears is usually compared to tactical shooters like GRAW and R6V, while the shooting mechanic and guns (along with the high health system) is similar to Halo and UT. the Tom Clancy shooters and Halo/UT are usually viewed as two different types of shooting genre's that never mix, but Gears was one of those games that was able to blend these two types into a fluid game mechanic. its awesome to be tactically taking cover and shooting from afar to take out the locust (GRAW and R6V), but then quickly switch to your shotty and just roll around killing the wretches right and left (Halo and UT)2) its co-op is second to none. while Halo 2 had co-op as well, it did not nearly perfect the idea of co-op gaming like Gears did. Epic said all along that they developed the SP with co-op in mind, and it shows. picking up your friend from being down really makes it so that you two stick together and work well together. also, the times when you split into different routes still has you helping out your teammate from different vantage points.3) there is a huge focus on teamwork. if your skills are good enough in games like halo and UT, you can easily take out multiple opponents on your own (e.g. those double kill and triple kill awards that you get in Halo while playing). unless they have the boomshot or hammer, any two decent players can take down a great Gears player with teamwork. the slow pace of the game (compared to halo and UT) allows for two players to easily coordinate an attack on a sole enemy and be successful.- the fact that the SP only had 4-8 players on the screen at the same time only shows how smart the AI was. in Halo, what is the use of bragging about numerous enemies that you are going against if half of them are just grunts that fall down after a couple of shots. each enemy in Gears (aside from wretches) could kill you... easily if you were not behind cover.- story was bad, very much agreed. but what about the halo 2 story... especially the ending? :roll: and while Gears SP took 6-8 hours to complete, halo 2's SP clocked in around 8-10 hours... not that much of a difference- host advantage is annoying if you desparately need to win in order to have fun. - the Gears community is only as bad as the halo 2 community. glitchers in gears = hackers in Halo 2. and both are filled with juvenile kids/adults.[/QUOTE]true, but i have to disagree with your first point. the online multi is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts, you can't tell me it isn't. and seriously, besides insane, the AI was dang stupid, especially with your allies. certainly an improvement over battlefront 2 though.also your first bullet does not make any sense. the elites were a lot tougher on legendary than the locusts ever were on insane. if you clock insane time vs. legendary time, gears of war campaign is really short. having a lot of enemies adds variety, instead of what gears did, just making them different based on the weapon they had.the host advantage is annoying even if you're having fun, as you just get killed without being able to do anything.if you go online right this second, i guarantee you the gears community is way worse than the halo 2 community.